Jump to content

Lindsay Mann

Premium Member
  • Posts

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lindsay Mann

  1. The company my school hired to switch two 16 cameras to Super16 forgot to send us the ground glass to go with it. Arriflex is now making them in Germany because they don't have any apparently. Is there any way to rent just the ground glass, or fake the ground glass using tape or something, so we wouldn't have to just guess what was in the frame? I'd wait, but we shoot on Saturday. Thanks!
  2. Reading my cinematography book, I've come up with a solution to the problem that the SR doesn't have a variable shutter. Well, ok, the book came up with it: undercranking at around 6fps and transferring to video at the same rate, in order to produce a motion-blur effect at regular speed. My questions are these: does this eliminate the possibility of going back out to film (at least economically) and what are the real effects of doing this? Experimenting with Final Cut, I really liked the motion blur effect and boosting saturation in color correction. I would be using this process in a series of moving shots somthing like the opening credits to the Sopranos. Anyone have any suggestions or articles on this? This would be on Super16, hopefully.
  3. yeah, I recall reading that post top to bottom before shooting the 7218. I really like the look of the 7246 overexposed a stop. Maybe it's more than a stop. How far can you push it? I guess "noise" is bad, but grain doesn't bother me. That sky is awesome, even if it's not supposed to look like that. Looks like smog.
  4. I'm sure this is probably discussed somewhere good, but I haven't found it yet: What does shooting anamorphic with super16 entail? Would I only do it if I were going out eventually to film? Otherwise, I'm assuming the telecine would squeeze the image onto whatever format I chose. Do people do this? Shoot S16mm with anamorphic lenses?
  5. what does cutting the 7218 with an ND do to the image? If I'm outside on a sunny day, 500 is a pretty damn fast film. I'd almost shoot 100T without the 85 and let it turn a little blue. Somehow I feel the tight grain would match the 7218. Is that completely wrong? thanks for the insight
  6. I love the look of 7218. It saved our butts so many times on a recent shoot. We were outside under a single streetlamp giving something like 10-20 footcandles and it was snowing. We were wondering if anything was going to show up at all. Everything did, even the snow on its way down. I'm very happy and I want to use the stock in my next shoot, because it is filled with night exteriors and pretty dark interiors, but what can I match it with for a bright daytime exterior? I guess I don't have to "match" the stocks because they are different scenes, but shouldn't there be some kind of consistency throughout? On the last film we were shooting in a library under the existing flourescents. We ran out of 7218 and shot with recans of 7277 which I thought was a complete mistake. But when we had enough light, the 7277 looked almost exactly the same. Was this an accident? I wouldn't try it again I don't think. But it made me smile. :)
  7. I thought Blanchette and Beckinsale were both quite good. Almost better than Leo. Why doesn't Scorsese just come out and admit he's in love with Leo? I thought the most breathtaking shots were the first time Hughes and Hepburn played a round of golf. I only read about the Digital Technicolor afterwards, and that shot threw me so offguard. I read a little on the AC Magazine site, but anyone got any other links about the techniques they used? I know I saw it up here somewhere before. As far as Ballhaus, I read that Scorsese loves him because he works really quickly and Scorsese needed a lot of setups on stuff like "Kings of Comedy" where the studio didn't trust him and didn't give him a lot of time. I haven't seen a lot of Ballhaus' stuff, but I recall there being some great lighting in "Sleepers," and "Outbreak." Imagine what "Sleepers" would have looked like with Scorsese behind the wheel.
  8. Truthfully, the lack of eye light bothered me throughout the film. I saw it yesterday too and there were quite a few sobsters in the theater, so Clint must have been doing something right, but I felt like the whole ending seemed so abrupt and uncalculated. And I realize now it's because of the eye light. There's a scene where Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman are in the locker room right near the end and you can't see their eyes at all. Their faces are in sillhoutte, and how is the audience supposed to know what either man is going through if we can't see their eyes? That's what ruined it for me. Yes, he was inventive and I liked the look of the gym at night most of the time, but we need that window into the souls of the characters. It's interesting because without that, I feel like I can't buy what he does at the end. I thought much of it was surprisingly unrealistic for a film nominated for best picture. What's with the fight scenes? Why are the boxing arenas so cheesy? My biggest arguments aren't against the cinematography, but more the story line. I guess it's a pretty hard story to tell. The one shot I thought was spectacular was as the Champ hits her when she isn't looking and she falls. It's a slow motion shot and then they cut to the fallen stool on the canvas and the audience knows exactly what's going to happen, but when it does, everyone in the theater cringes. There were literally shouts of pain when I saw it. That's a damn good shot. The boxing arenas remind me of D. Mullen's feature about the spelling bee. How does one make large crowd situations believeable? Christopher Guest does it well, I guess.
  9. Thanks Tim, I've pretty much been living on craigslist, and never heard of mandy.com, but i'm gonna check it out. I've checked out shootingpeople.com's NY stuff, but are there any other great sites or places to check for upcoming gigs? I'll check out Mass' film office, and I've looked on newenglandfilm.com, but I pretty much plan to get the hell out of Boston after May. It seems like either NY or LA. Or Philadelphia... what?
  10. Watch it Andino, I'll eat you for breakfast... -Lindsay MANN
  11. Thank you everyone, I really feed off of this stuff. It really gives me hope.... some of it. I would be perfectly happy deluding myself, thinking I could make it, for the rest of my life, as long as I got to work with film and music. If I don't have a cent on the day I die, at least I can say I did what I wanted to do. Someone just look after my kids for me ok? And Phil... it sounds like someone needs a hug. But I appreciate your honesty.
  12. I believe Mark Twain said: "When we do not know a person--and also when we do--we have to judge his size by the size and nature of his achievements, as compared with the achievements of others in his special line of business--there is no other way." Those that do it for fame make movies that the people want. Those that do it for art make movies that they want for themselves. And to me the latter is more important. If I can reach some people in the process so be it. Cinema can be a selfish art form. And, as Snoop Dogg put it: "You'se a flea and I'm the big Dogg I'll scratch you off my balls with my motherf*@%in paws" Snoop is a true artist...
  13. rumor has it Syracuse has a pretty good film school. I can't speak for their academics because the only kids I know there are burnouts or college atheletes. Then again Hakim Warrick is a pretty smart guy. I go to BU. We just got new Arri lights and super16 cameras. In September I would've told you our film dept. sucks, but we have an Avid Lab and we're doing just fine. And, though I ignored it, the College of Arts and Sciences offers amazing classes. bueno suerte
  14. I'll keep this short. I am a senior film student at Boston University (good school, but not the most recognized film school). Upon graduating, I will have a couple good shorts and hopefully a feature screenplay. The shorts are good and can possibly win some festivals. But as a Director/Cinematographer, where do I go from here? These are the things I wish we learned in film school, but there seems to be no clear path. I'm not asking for a road map. I'm asking what is profitable, realistic, and challenging for someone who can edit, shoot, and maybe write a little. Besides reading until my head hurts about fog filters and copyright attorneys, where do I go just to get work? What do you wish you had done when you were 22? What is possible now? And does anyone know a good therapist? I really respect each and every one of you that posts on this site. It is truly educational and inspiring. Thank you.
  15. I actually had the opportunity to see 2046 in Cannes this past summer. I don't know if there was a film at the festival, other than House of Flying Daggers (which I guess Xiaoding Zhao was nominated for, that's an incredible movie) or Old Boy, that had more compelling lighting. As a viewer I was transported to another time and another world. I was dazzled by completely surrealistic greens and reds, and I bought it. And isn't that what this job is supposed to be all about? I haven't seen Rabbit-Proof Fence yet so I can't comment on that, but if you get the chance to see 2046, it could bring you around to appreciating Doyle and his versatility. And as for Made... personally, I think P-Diddy makes the entire movie. And it's gotta be an achievement to light Jon Favreau in an attractive way. Just kidding.. he's awesome. see the movie.
  16. Whoa. You just blew my mind. I had never thought about that, I don't know why. The one problem I forsee is matching it to the other stills coming from the slide projector. I want it to see natural, and I want to actually film the slides projected on the wall (including the sharp beam of light from the lamp cutting through some fog). I suppose those could be different shots though and match rather well. Thanks. Very astute. While we're on it though, has anyone suggestions for creating that sharp beam through the fog? I have a feeling the light will all diffuse rather severely. We're talking minimal fog here, it's a living room interior. But I want to portray the dreamlike nature of light projected through photographs. Brilliant suggestion, though, I'm definitely trying it with my video camera. I wish I thought of that.
  17. I will soon be shooting the following, if I can figure it out: Track back from my subject in location A, at the end of the track, freeze frame and seamlessly transition to location B, my subject's image is still in freeze frame, but as a slide projected on the wall. continue the track back into location B. any suggestions? And, for bonus points, name a movie in which this takes place. I had originally thought Barton Fink, but that does not count. Although it's basically the same idea. Defending Your Life with Al Brooks uses something very similar in the final judgement scene. Great movie by the way. Even greater name: Rip Torn. So long and good luck. Your grades will be determined on succinctness and originality. You may begin...
×
×
  • Create New...